Putting Christian Ecumenism into Practice

  • Thread starter Thread starter stbruderklaus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, there is not much that I can add to the Purgatory discussion other than two points that mean something to me.

First, we cannot choose it. We can do nothing to earn it or avoid it, save live a perfectly holy life. It is another part of the Grace and love of God for us.

Second, were there no original sin, there would be no purgatory. Part of the reason we need it is to remove that last little bit of attachment. Concupiscence or whatever you want to call it. As pointed out, if we are not founded on Christ, we do not make it that far. Since none of us can be perfect, we need that last but to be perfect to be in the presence of God.
 
As I sit here, I do think that it is good to note that the Catholic Church does not stress the purgation as taking place over a period of time anymore. No, it is seen as being more about being ready than how long we are in.

I would also like to point out that the Indulgences no longer carry time with them, such as 30 days or five years. This was never meant to indicate time off purgatory, but how much time in penance this would be the same as. In other words, studying the Bible for one hour might have been the same as three years of penance.
 
Indeed, the time related to indulgences was, if properly understood, tied to the penetential system that was really a canonical construct. Unfortunately, like many things in the Reformation era, popular piety had changed the original intent into something much different… which influenced the “donations” contributed for different indulgences.
 
stbruderklaus said:
Indeed, the time related to indulgences was, if properly understood, tied to the penetential system that was really a canonical construct. Unfortunately, like many things in the Reformation era, popular piety had changed the original intent into something much different… which influenced the “donations” contributed for different indulgences.
Click to expand...
Correct. Even the donation part makes sense if seen correctly. No one would ever say that alms-giving is not a form of sacrafice. Where it becomes problematic is when the goal is not to help others but to help ones own self
 
Well, the Council’s experts those who were named precisely to be the experts of the Council, the periti the ones who were largely responsible for putting together the documents, and making the corrections and edits; they made very sure that the term ecumenism was not defined. Because if they had defined the term, at least 90 percent of the bishops present at the Second Vatican Council would have screamed, “This is heresy! It must be expunged. We cannot proclaim this, it is an error. It is against the Catholic Faith, it is heresy.”

fatimacrusader.com/cr79/cr79pg57.asp
 
Nope-- as a matter of fact, Luther preached extensively on alms giving to the poor and needy as among the great acts of love and charity in Christendom. He did, however, preach extensively against the suggested donations of the indulgence preachers, who to his mind were fleecing the German people for Roman building projects and helping to solidify horrible theology amongst the common people.

Anyway, the idea of a Purgatory that was a place of indeterminent and brutal punishment, which the bishops or the pope could mitigate with contributions to the Roman treasury via indulgences was ghastly… and rightly condemned by both Rome and Lutherans. Unfortunately, Rome didn’t repudiate that concept nearly quickly enough, and the Lutherans were left thinking that Purgatory and Indulgences were a clever ruse concocted to brutalize foreign lands and prop up a tyrranical system.

It is long past time that we looked at each other without our 16th century prejudices.
 
stbruderklaus said:
Nope-- as a matter of fact, Luther preached extensively on alms giving to the poor and needy as among the great acts of love and charity in Christendom. He did, however, preach extensively against the suggested donations of the indulgence preachers, who to his mind were fleecing the German people for Roman building projects and helping to solidify horrible theology amongst the common people.

Anyway, the idea of a Purgatory that was a place of indeterminent and brutal punishment, which the bishops or the pope could mitigate with contributions to the Roman treasury via indulgences was ghastly… and rightly condemned by both Rome and Lutherans. Unfortunately, Rome didn’t repudiate that concept nearly quickly enough, and the Lutherans were left thinking that Purgatory and Indulgences were a clever ruse concocted to brutalize foreign lands and prop up a tyrranical system.

It is long past time that we looked at each other without our 16th century prejudices.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Domini_servus said:
Well, the Council’s experts those who were named precisely to be the experts of the Council, the periti the ones who were largely responsible for putting together the documents, and making the corrections and edits; they made very sure that the term ecumenism was not defined. Because if they had defined the term, at least 90 percent of the bishops present at the Second Vatican Council would have screamed, “This is heresy! It must be expunged. We cannot proclaim this, it is an error. It is against the Catholic Faith, it is heresy.”

fatimacrusader.com/cr79/cr79pg57.asp
Click to expand...
Wow, friend-- that’s one angry site you’re referencing. I’m sorry to say I only got half way through that article before the unbelievably poor scholarship and analysis sent me packing. If your fundamental premise is that Christian unity is heretical, I think you need to re-examine the Scriptural basis that both our communions use to drive us toward that goal.

Ecumenism is not heretical-- heresy is heretical. Ecumenism that seeks to bring Christians together in faith, hope, and love, is good, so long as it never endorses heresy. Of course, getting a common definition of heresy becomes problematic, but there is much that we agree upon up through the 7 ecumenical councils.

Peace.
 
You must understand that there are those within the Catholic Church who say that to be “ecumenical” means to cease to be Catholic and to become something else. Some of them are against any form of ecumenical dialog. Others are actually pushing for it, as they see the dogmas of the faith as being secondary to human unity.

Both are wrong.
 
stbruderklaus said:
Wow, friend-- that’s one angry site you’re referencing. I’m sorry to say I only got half way through that article before the unbelievably poor scholarship and analysis sent me packing.If your fundamental premise is that Christian unity is heretical, I think you need to re-examine the Scriptural basis that both our communions use to drive us toward that goal.
Click to expand...
Specifically, what poor analysis and scholarship are you referring to (I’m not being sarcastic although typically I am)? Also, what Scripture passages drive us toward Christian unity? As you could probably guess, I don’t buy into ecumenism (to put it mildly).

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
 
I think these two quotes explain very well what the Catholic church really teaches about ecumenism.

“Such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.”

–Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Mortalium Animos, par. 2, January 6, 1928

“But God forbid that the sons of the Catholic Church ever in any way be hostile to those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love; but rather they should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them, whether poor, or sick, or afflicted with any other burdens, with all the offices of Christian charity; and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and ‘being fruitful in every good work’ [Colossians 1:10], they may attain eternal salvation.”

–Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, par. 9, August 10, 1863 (Denzinger 1678)

novusordowatch.org/ecumenism.htm
 
stbruderklaus

Christian unity is Catholic unity. Christian unity will only be achieved when all other “Christian faiths” profess the Catholic faith. Christ instituted His Church as the only means of salvation for the whole world. Logically it makes sense. If there is only “One,Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic Church” then unity will only be achieved when everyone is a part of this Church. Trying to find “common ground” won’t work and will only lead to the “dilution” of doctrine (which it has since Vatican II). This link explains the heresy of religious indifferentism.

newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm
 
Perhaps you can explain how you understand the significance of the subsistence of the Catholic Church in the Roman Catholic Church… and the recognition by Rome that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church may legitimately be expressed in communions not fully joined to Rome?

There is a difference is saying that there is only One True Church (which both Lutherans and Romans confess) and equating the One True Church exclusively to the Roman Church. I will grant that the One Catholic Church subsists in the Roman communion, but I also grant that it exists in the Eastern Orthodox, as well as some others… such as orthodox Lutherans and Anglicans, as well as others.

I guess I’m having trouble understanding which Roman doctrines you support and which you reject…

Cheers.
 
It’s like this. Since Vatican II the Roman church has radically departed from it’s previous positions on many issues. I am no theologian so I can’t confirm this myself. I have read books and websites that explain the departure.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a065ht_BreakMagisterium.htm. This website credits the changes with the heresy of Modernism which was explicitly condemned by Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907). Now the Roman Catholic church is present as both a human and a mystical institution.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm. Humanly speaking it consists of the actual institution of the Roman Catholic Church with the Supreme Pontiff as it’s “earthly” head and Christ as it’s “spiritual” and ultimate head. Therefore, the Catholic Church is NOT expressed legitimately in any “church” or religion that doesn’t hold all of the doctrines of the Roman Church. If Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglican’s really believe that there is only “One True Church” then why are they separate institutions? When “Rome” says that other sects are somehow in communion with the Catholic Church it isn’t speaking the truth as it taught for centuries. The reason for this is very horrific and my post would be deleted if I mentioned it here (some of my others have been). If you’d like I could send you a private message on this (it shocked me).

The only doctrines I unquestionably accept are those taught before Vatican II.

Ultimately, it comes down to the nature of (religious) truth.

“This doctrine is widely advocated today on the grounds that, beyond the truth of God’s existence, we can attain to no certain religious knowledge; and that, since God has left us thus in uncertainty, He will be pleased with whatever form of worship we sincerely offer Him. The full reply to this error consists in the proof that God has vouchsafed to man a supernatural revelation, embodying a definite religion, which He desires that all should embrace and practice. Without appealing to this fact, however, a little consideration suffices to lay bare the inherent absurdity of this doctrine. All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth; and God may accept the imperfect worship of ignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight. Since various religions are in disagreement, it follows that, wherever they conflict, if one possesses the truth the others are in error.” (my changes)

newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm

As I have noted, I am not a theologian so if anything I have said isn’t correct then I submit myself to the Catholic Church (the True Church that is).
 
Friend,

Here is what still confuses me in your position. You are claiming a divine right for the Roman Church exclusive of other Christians, but the Roman Pope that you seem to be declaring as supremely necessary to the Christian Church is the one you repudiate with your contentions that each Pope since Vatican II has been in grave error. Your argument seems to be that the true Catholic Church ceased, or went into exile, after Vatican II, and now somehow exists apart from it’s Pope. Can you see how that seems odd to a Christian not under Roman authority?

For instance, Luther and other Reformers argued that, at the time of their Pope, the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church still continued, but it was heavily obfuscated by erroneous teaching (at least as far as they could observe it from their German vantage point.) This lead them to conclude that the Church-- a work of the Spirit of God-- could not be overcome by sinful men, even if they were bishops and cardinals and priests. The Church of God, the One True Church, must be a mystical reality with a physical manifestation… such that the physical reflects the Spiritual as its base and root. In this understanding, the Church of Christ is present anywhere and everywhere the Spirit of God calls sinners to repentance and faith in Christ-- or, as the Lutheran Confessions state, where ever the faithful in Christ gather around the preaching of the Holy Scriptures and the proper administration of the Holy Sacraments. Lutherans never disavowed a physical manifestation of the Spiritual bedrock of the Church-- but we did state quite clearly than any human ediface that attempts to reflect the majesty of that work of God which is His Church, is always frought with human sin and distortion.

You seem to argue that the Roman Church is more than a physical manifestation of the Spiritual reality of the One True Church, and yet at the same time argue that this Roman Church is leading billions of souls into error through the Pope you assume to be necessary to the Church. Either the Roman Pope is the infallible Vicar of Christ and necessary to the constitution of the Church… or he is not. It would seem that you trying to reconcile dichotemous positions, my friend.

As a Lutheran, I have no problem confessing that the Pope has, can, and shall continue to err. I do not, however, think the reality of the eternal Church of Christ is threatened by this, though our collective witness to the Apostolic Gospel can be either enhanced or detracted by the relative faithfulness of popes… and by the relative faithfulness of the Roman communion as a whole, just as the relative faithfulness of Lutheran communions either enhance or detract from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the pope is faithful, we Lutherans ought to rally around him… and when we percieve that he is not, we ought to correct him in Christian charity. As a Roman, I do not understand how you reconcile your position.

Peace to you.
 
Hi all,

Good thread. I’m a newcomer to it, so I hope you don’t mind if I reply to a post from last week …
stbruderklaus said:
You might find it troubling that your radically Roman articulation of ecumenism is quite contrary to your own Pope and Magesterium.

Perhaps you should take some time to ponder that. Tough to be a radical Roman apologist, while undermining Roman leadership and initiatives.

Peace.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think that Rome permits Catholics a pretty wide range of opinions regarding ecumenism.

For example, here’s one not-entirely-uninteresting take on ecumenism. About a year ago, in an interview on the subject of a possible “fifth Marian dogma”, Cardinal Luis Aponte Martínez was asked:
The principal objection to this new Marian dogma seems to be ecumenism. Would this papal definition hurt the Church’s critically important mission of ecumenism in your view?
Click to expand...
In his reply, the Cardinal said:
A solemn definition regarding Our Lady’s spiritual maternity would actually be a giant step forward in ecumenism, as it would clearly distinguish what the Church definitively teaches – that Mary is not a goddess, that Catholics don’t place Mary on a level of equality with Jesus her divine son, and that Mary as a human participated in the historic act of redemption in a way absolutely and completely dependent on Jesus. This would clear up a myriad of misunderstandings amidst our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, leading to greater dialogue and unity regarding Jesus’ mother and within his body. This is true ecumenism from a Catholic perspective.
Click to expand...
(That’s one paragraph of his response. You can read the entire response here.)

I don’t want to put words into anyone’s mouth; but given the above quote, I would assume that Cardinal Martínez also believes that the First Vatican Council was doing the work of ‘true ecumenism’ when it dogmatically defined Papal Infallibility.
 
Indeed, ecumenism that seeks to properly distinguish what each party believes, teaches, and confesses, is a noble endeavor. I would take no issue with that-- in fact, I would think it essential. Once we understand each other properly, rather than from the language of polemics and apologetics, we have real hope of working out disagreements and misunderstandings.

The points going back and forth earlier began to degenerate into what I believe were the concerns of an ultra-Traditionalist (if I have that moniker correct) who has grave concerns about any of the ecumenical movements since Vatican II. My primary point of contention, is that it is hard for me to understand the ultra-Traditionalist approach to ecumenism, because it seems to pit a sect of Romans against the Popes of the last 60 years or so… which as a Lutheran, I have a hard time figuring out, since ultra-Traditionalists radically affirm the absolute power of the Pope.

I’ve been very encouraged by the ecumenical efforts of the last few decades, and particularly by the reconciling words and actions of our current Pope. With a pastoral heart and keen intellect like his, we have real hope of drawing Lutherans and Anglicans back into visible unity with our Patriarch of the West.

Unfortunately, I see factions within Rome that don’t want anything other than to continue the division… and we have those same folks in the Lutheran communions. It seems that Romans who do this contradict or undermine their own ecclesiastical authority, and the Lutherans who do so contradict our written confessions in the Book of Concord. Sad in both circumstances… almost like triumphalism and sectarianism in an unholy union, bent on propagating themselves into eternity.

Peace to you.
 
thirdn6 said:
This is how I see it (strictly my personal opinion). True ecumenism is carried out this way:

Peace<<–>>Tolerance->>Dialogues->>Truths->>Conversion
not
Peace<<–>>Tolerance->>Dialogues->>Truths->>Agreements.
Click to expand...
Your absolutely right! (sort of)

So tell me, how are you going to go about converting those left-wing liberal heretic “catholics” that infest our Church to true Catholicism?

Because you need to first do that before you start wasting your time trying to convert non-catholic Christians to Catholicism.
**
(90% of Evangelical Christians voted AGAINST Obama, embarrassing the 50% pro Obama “catholic” vote)**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top